In the case of preferential allocation of immovable property, which is the correct taxable amount for VAT purposes?

Do not follow these reflections colleagues who intend to use the exemption; probably the effort would be useless in most cases.

When, however, for duty or by choice will be applied on value added tax, the figure is absolutely crucial; then, verify the content of paragraph 7.1 of the circular 26/E/2016 who handled the issue without, however, being able to materially resolve the doubt.

And nothing done, mind you, is not to be ascribed to the Agency, but negatively to a Community legislation and which is not entirely clear or at least suitable for practical operator.

First, recall that the taxable revenue TAX has nothing to do with the cadastral value, if you have chosen this parameter (for the fiscal sector and certainly not to that accountant) to carry out the operation.

In the absence of rules on exceptions, then, you have to redo the content of article 13, paragraph 2, point c) of DPR 633/1972, which we have already mentioned in previous speeches on the subject.

For the purposes of determining the tax base, we must refer to the policy constituted "the purchase price or, failing that, by the cost price of the goods or of similar goods determined when performing these operations".

What is the cost price there is clear, but we know only that for Community requirements and compliance with the directive, the criterion of thepurchase price has replaced the previous parameter of the normal value.

Internal prediction is now compliant with guidelines dictated by article 74 of Directive No. 2006/112/EC, under which the transactions in which lacks the consideration for the taxable amount is the purchase price of the goods or of similar goods or, in the absence of a purchase price, the cost price, determined at the time when performing these operations.

The circular 26/E/2016 States that "the forecast purchase price or replacement cost, normal value, implies that the taxable amount for VAT free sale does not include the" reloading "normally practiced on the market for that good, but it is in the form of the purchase price of the asset" updated "at the time of supply".

Even such an indication there was known, with the only difficulty that the concept of discounting assumes that you have a future value that must be brought back to the present, while probably here you have to do something different, namely an update.

The circular itself cannot do is cite known references of Community case-law that, diligently, propose at a glance:

European Court of Justice, May 17, 2001-joined cases C-322/99 and C-323/99 (Fischer): free the taxable amount of the supply coincides with the "residual value of the asset at the time of collection. In the quantification of such "residual value", account must be taken of expenditure relating to operations which consist in the incorporation into the main asset transferred other assets that have led to a lasting increase in value not entirely consumed at the time of collection. We note that the concept of residual value seems closer to a concept of current value or, if you will, still value expressible from the good (in fact, no reloading of saying above);

European Court of Justice judgment in case C-142/12 May 3, 2013: does not conform to Community law a national standard that considers the normal value of the goods for which the taxable activity outside the company, in case this last activity ceases.

Including the "Fundamentals" it's about finding a synthesis that is physically applicable.

It is stated that-for the purposes of determining the tax base – "the purchase price cannot be limited to the amount paid to purchase the asset, but should also include all costs incurred to repair and complete the asset during its corporate life (unless it is expenditure on purchases of goods and services in respect of which the tax has been applied and has been made the deduction thereof) , keeping, however, Bill, even with regard to these, the depreciation that the good has undergone ".

Then:

(+) purchase price;

(+) incremental expenses and completion, with VAT deducted;

(-) depreciation suffered by well over time.

The first two elements are clear, while lacking any references for the quantification of the third.

In doctrine, had referred to a sort of "depreciation" of these values, a concept which could express the depreciation for (although today, in hindsight, the depreciation process is a subdivision of a multiyear cost over several years, taking into account the future utility).

Seem paradoxical, but as well as companies make a big effort to spell out a repayment plan that takes into account the future utility of a good, indeed the same subjects will make a big effort to locate the depreciation that should reduce the taxable amount within the assignment.

It seems there is a unique solution, than to realize a decrementativo factor that is as objective as possible and, where possible, may find indirect feedback in the market value of the asset, nettizzato a component of gain attributable to the taxable seller.